Pakistan: A Downward Spiral?

Also from bhangilauru (is it chennai now?)...what morons ...

Yaar Zeemax, looks like you've well and truly lost it.

Some more reasons for the Spiral or is it Meltdown....???

The militants are roaming the streets of Karachi, Lahore and other major cities of Pakistan raising the slogans of 'jihad' as if 'jihad' is their mental and spiritual diet. It is, to be honest, is a dangerous state of affairs for the Pakistani society and its health. There are number of reasons why Pakistan is passing through the jihad mode today.

Pakistan was conceived as a homeland for the Muslims. There were so many contradictions in this concept of Muslim homeland which were totally ignored at the time. The heat of partition melted all such contradiction. But these contradictions are surfacing with all intensity. The concept of Muslim homeland implied that all Muslims are united merely on the basis of religion and there are, among them, neither ethnic differences, nor class or sectarian differences. And that all Muslims will equally benefit from this homeland.

Religion is very vital force in human life but it is so on spiritual plane. There are several factors on the secular plane which motivate human behaviour. Human behaviour, it must be remembered, is not determined by religious beliefs alone; rarely it so happens. Human behaviour more often is determined by worldly interests. Muslim homeland itself was product of worldly interests rather than spiritual homogeneity. It was thought by Mohammad Ali Jinnah and his Muslim League colleagues that Muslim political and economic interests would not be taken care of in the 'Hindu India' and that a separate homeland for Muslims is needed.

The underlying assumption was that if a community of people who follow same religion will automatically have uniform interests. But this has been totally belied today as it ought to have been. Religion can never ensure unity of interests. In a democratic society various divisions surface which also become political fault lines. No truly democratic society can suppress these divisions which also ensure formation of identities. Diversity, in other words, is the lifeline of democracy and genuine national unity can emerge only from respect for this diversity.

But in an authoritarian society these diversities are considered as sign of danger and is sought to be suppressed. The authoritarian society seeks uniformity and confuses uniformity with unity. In all authoritarian societies all other identities - ethnic, linguistic or sectarian, is sought to be suppressed and only one identity - be it national identity or racial or religious identity is enforced from above to ensure unity. But as soon as authoritarian structure is demolished and replaced by democratic or even proto-democratic structure, these identities emerge to the surface and tend to assume more volatile form after a prolonged period of suppression.

Pakistani society has undergone similar process. It was for long under military dictatorship which tried to suppress all other identities except either overarching Pakistani identity or Islamic identity. But ethnic identities exploded the moment first general elections were held in 1969. The Bengali identity was feeling suffocated and the first election itself provided an opportunity for it to break loose from the overarching Pakistani identity. The Pakistan went through great crisis during seventies when a kind of proto democratic structures were surfacing in that country. It was a period of semi-democracy for Pakistan.

Different identities began to emerge and ethnic identities began to submerge the overarching identity after a long period of suppression. While all people of Pakistan are proud of their Islamic identity they are not prepared to barter their regional or ethnic identity for the Islamic identity as the Punjabi ruling classes would like them to do. The ethnic identities become quite explosive even if they are sought to be hegemonised by one particular ethnic identity, the Punjabi identity in case of Pakistan. The Sindhis, the Baluchis, the Pathans and the Urdu speaking Muhajirs who, ironically are also referred to as Sindhis by domicile, are sought to be dominated by the Punjabis. Even within the Punjab the Saraiki speakers are resenting Punjabi domination. The Saraiki speakers claim to be 60% of the Punjab province.

The ultra rightist party of Pakistan - the Jamat-e-Islami is almost exclusively Punjab based party now and it is the Jamat which wants to bulldoze all other identities in the name of Islamic identity. It is the Jamat which is raising the slogan of jihad, jihad to save not the Pakistan but the Punjabi domination. And there is silent collusion of the Punjabi ruling classes with the Jamat and its attempt to bulldoze all other identities in the name of Islam.

It is also to be noted that the word 'jihad' is being utterly misused by the Pakistani religious fanatics. It is interesting to note that one does not find in the Qur'an the word 'jihad' in the sense in which it is being popularly used i.e. 'holy war'. The word in the Qur'an for war is 'qitaal' and not jihad. The word 'jihad' is used in its literal sense i.e. to strive, to assert or to make efforts. Thus jihad in the Qur'anic terminology means to assert oneself or to make efforts to promote what is right and to prohibit what is evil.

And in Qur'an qitaal is also permitted against persecution and to establish justice, not for territorial aggrandisement. Even if the word 'jihad' is used, it is also for defense of faith and not for annexation of territory or to solve territorial dispute. Also to kill innocent civilians as the extremists are doing in Jammu and other parts of J & K cannot be jihad. It is against all principles of Islam. Thus to wage 'jihad' in Kashmir is a total misnomer. Kashmir is a territorial dispute between India and Pakistan which has to be resolved between the two countries. There is no question of religious persecution as far as the Kashmir question is concerned. The Muslims of Kashmir under Shaikh Abdulla had clearly supported the National Conference and its programme of alliance with India. In fact the Kashmiris from the valley fought against the raiders from Pakistan and checked their further advance. It was a purely political move in order to annex territory and could not be construed as jihad by any stretch of imagination.

Similarly, the intrusion in Kargil is also part of territorial dispute and cannot be called 'jihad' at all. It is real irony that the intruders are described as 'mujahidins' (i.e. those waging jihad). Are these 'mujahidin' defending the faith of Islam in any sense in Kargil? On the other hand, the most affected people by their 'jihad' are the Muslims of Kargil. Their homes and hearths have been destroyed by the relentless shelling in Kargil. The Kargil Muslims have resented the Pakistani intrusion most. Who would, any way, like their homes being destroyed and their normal life completely disrupted? To disrupt the lives of fellow Muslims cannot be a part of jihad anyway.

The Pakistani society is undergoing violent phase. There are several factors responsible for this. The Taliban factor is one among them. Many sagacious thinkers, writers and journalists from Pakistan, the noted anthropologist and scholar Akbar Ahmad being one among them, had pointed out that supporting highly orthodox religious students who have undergone rigorous and rigid religious training in Madrasas in the North West Frontier province, to fight a partisan war in Afghanistan, would not be in the best interest of Pakistan.

The Taliban have not only tested the gun, they have tested the power of religious orthodoxy also. And religious orthodoxy and power of the gun is a heady mix. The Taliban after finishing their job in Afghanistan are returning to Pakistan and wish to recreate Afghan society there. It must be said that compared to many Islamic countries Pakistan is far more 'secular' and 'modern'. The military dictators, after all, were not religious fanatics with the exception of Zia. In fact Ayub resisted the influence of orthodox 'ulama and introduced many modern laws. Yahya Khan too, by and large, refrained from invoking religious orthodoxy for legitimising his rule.

It was General Zia who, for the first time, invoked religious orthodoxy to perpetuate his rule and to legitimise it. He also welcomed the Afghan war as a godsend and got much help from CIA which was interested in defeating Soviet Russia. The Afghan mujahidin too had to invoke Islamic orthodoxy to fight against the atheistic Russians. All the training to them was imparted on the territory of Pakistan adjacent to Afghanistan. Thus it was General Zia who systematically injected religious orthodoxy in Pakistani politics.

The Taliban phenomenon was its natural outcome. And the madrasas then set up in the North West Province are churning out large number of 'Taliban' every year. These religious students are being injected with the heavy dose of jihad and what is worse, along with the religious training, they are also being imparted military training in these madrasas. Thus the emphasis is more on jihadist mind set rather than on truly religious mind set. These madrasas have acquired vested interest of their own as they receive funds from various sources, including some Islamic countries.

It is, to say the least, not in the interest of Pakistani civil society. It amounts to spreading cult of violence in Pakistan. The ruling classes want to use these 'mujahidin' to suppress ethnic unrest and to maintain the Punjabi hegemony. But so far there is no sign of success. The cult of violence is spreading fast in the civil society without there being any sign of ethnic unrest vanishing. The ethnic groups have their own legitimate aspirations and no amount of jihadist mind set, being promoted by powerful vested interests, can suppress these aspirations. The suppressed ethnic groups, particularly the Sindhis, the Baluchis and the Muhajirs, have acute political consciousness and they will not barter away their legitimate aspirations for an illusionary Islamic identity. However, this does not mean that they are not good Muslims. In fact they are much better Muslims that those selling 'Islamic' identity to them.

In Pakistan unfortunately the military is not under civilian control and has autonomy of its own. It is also thus interested in keeping the Jihadist mind set alive and spreading the cult of violence. It is only through this strategy that the civil society will remain under its thumb. The civil society will have to wage many a struggle to liberate itself from the hegemony of the armed forces.

Maulana Zeemax (RA),

Re#15

Don't have to look as far as South India just look in your own backyard- the NWFP. Bannu, the cradle of the jehad was described by one of your oooooooon friends (Manto Mian) as San Fransisco of the East.

Regards

How bad is Pakistan doing?

Arjun, Manto, Tahmed etc (all those interested in crosscountry comparison):

"According to the Asian Development Bank’s (ADB) ‘International Programme (ICP) in Asia and the Pacific: Purchasing Power Parity Preliminary Report’, Pakistan at 14th place was ahead of China and India which were at 15th and 17th positions respectively when economies were compared based on per capita ‘actual final consumption of households (AFCH)’, a measure of economic wellbeing of the population"

Let the games begin ..... :)

#21 Posted by GT on August 1, 2007 8:35:02 am

Did they use their own numbers or the numbers doctored by the paki government?

Oh? you hadn't heard? apparently telecom has provided a big boost to Pakiland's GDP..

link

The problem with Pakistanis is that they are transforming from good looking warriors to ugly banias:

"Longtime rivals India and Pakistan agreed Wednesday to boost two-way trade by more than five times to US$10 billion (€7.3 billion) by 2010 as they defused a dispute over the export of a variety of basmati rice."

It looks like Pakilands # 1 export is being targeted....

Obama fires terrorism warning to Pakistan


Agencies
Wednesday August 1, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

The US presidential hopeful Barack Obama will today say he is prepared to send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists if he is elected to the White House.
The remarks, from a speech to be delivered later today, appear to be an attempt to show strength after Hillary Clinton, his chief rival for the Democratic nomination, described his foreign policy approach as naive.
Mr Obama will warn the Pakistani president, Pervez Musharraf, that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters.
________________________________________
He will say failure to do so could mean a US troop invasion and the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in US military aid under an Obama presidency.
"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans," he will add, according to an advance copy of the speech supplied by his campaign team.
"They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
Ms Clinton has widened her lead over Mr Obama, according to a new poll published today.
The Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll put support for the New York senator at 43% among Democrats, while Illinois senator Mr Obama slipped from 25% in June to 22% in July. Ms Clinton's support stood at 39% in June.
The poll also revealed that if the presidential election was held today, either Ms Clinton or Mr Obama would beat the former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani, the current favourite for the Republican nomination.
Ms Clinton and Mr Obama have sparred in recent weeks, trading accusations over foreign policy positions.
Mr Obama said he would be willing to meet the leaders of Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions - an idea Ms Clinton said was irresponsible and naive.
He responded by using the same words to describe her vote to authorise the Iraq war, calling her "Bush-Cheney lite". Today's speech is also intended as a condemnation of George Bush's Iraq policies.
Mr Obama said the focus on Iraq had left the US in more danger than before the September 11 2001 attacks, adding that Mr Bush had misrepresented the enemy as Iraqis fighting a civil war instead of the terrorists responsible for the attacks six years ago.
He said that, as US commander in chief, he would remove troops from Iraq and put them "on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan", adding that he would send at least two more brigades to Afghanistan and increase non-military aid to the country by $1bn (£492m).
Mr Obama also said he would create a three-year, $5bn programme to share intelligence with allies worldwide to take out terrorist networks from Indonesia to Africa.

The US presidential hopeful Barack Obama will today say he is prepared to send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists if he is elected to the White House.
The remarks, from a speech to be delivered later today, appear to be an attempt to show strength after Hillary Clinton, his chief rival for the Democratic nomination, described his foreign policy approach as naive.
Mr Obama will warn the Pakistani president, Pervez Musharraf, that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters.

He will say failure to do so could mean a US troop invasion and the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in US military aid under an Obama presidency.
"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans," he will add, according to an advance copy of the speech supplied by his campaign team.
"They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
Ms Clinton has widened her lead over Mr Obama, according to a new poll published today.
The Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll put support for the New York senator at 43% among Democrats, while Illinois senator Mr Obama slipped from 25% in June to 22% in July. Ms Clinton's support stood at 39% in June.
The poll also revealed that if the presidential election was held today, either Ms Clinton or Mr Obama would beat the former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani, the current favourite for the Republican nomination.
Ms Clinton and Mr Obama have sparred in recent weeks, trading accusations over foreign policy positions.
Mr Obama said he would be willing to meet the leaders of Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions - an idea Ms Clinton said was irresponsible and naive.
He responded by using the same words to describe her vote to authorise the Iraq war, calling her "Bush-Cheney lite". Today's speech is also intended as a condemnation of George Bush's Iraq policies.
Mr Obama said the focus on Iraq had left the US in more danger than before the September 11 2001 attacks, adding that Mr Bush had misrepresented the enemy as Iraqis fighting a civil war instead of the terrorists responsible for the attacks six years ago.
He said that, as US commander in chief, he would remove troops from Iraq and put them "on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan", adding that he would send at least two more brigades to Afghanistan and increase non-military aid to the country by $1bn (£492m).
Mr Obama also said he would create a three-year, $5bn programme to share intelligence with allies worldwide to take out terrorist networks from Indonesia to Africa.

THe problem of Pakistan is in its name itself.

The pretense of purity . And finally ISLAM.

The problem of Pakistan is in ISLAM itself. How can a nation be based upon the priciples of genocide to hindu idolators?? Such a nation has to be a belligerent and murderous nation in its character.

The only way to get Pakistan out of the mess is by abolishing this pretense of Islamic nation.

The state of a nation is reflected in sport like it is in any sphere of social life.
For Pakistan it has been a slide for sure. There was a time when Pakistani per capita income was higher than India's, the Pakistani Rupee was stronger than India's, Pakistan was considered more prosperous than India. Today India has taken a lead which Pakistan cannot close for decades.
The Pakistani nation has been unfortunate to have been led by incompetent civilian leaders who have not been able to put the army in its place. It is really a shame to see senior leaders elected by the people jee huzooring the General Sa'abs, whereas the generals should stick to protecting the borders. Nobody knows who is the Army C-in-C in democracies like USA, UK, Canada, France, but when it comes to Pakistan, the whole world knows who is in command because either he is in power as a dictator or he is planning the next coup, therefore a man to watch.
The people must throw away the army yoke and usher in true federal democracy and Pakistan can find its moorings.

#24 Obama will have a hard time adjusting back to his job of lining trash cans at McDonalds, after Hillary steam rolls over this bimbo in the primaries.

Obama says he is going to invade Pakistan,hehehe. This guy appeared sane just a few weeks ago now after being 22 points behind Hillary he is unhinged.

Here is what John Podhoretz said but there is really more to it...This is a response from a conservative. Who would regularly support bombing Iran and other country but what he says about invading Pakistan is eye opening in fact for Channa(below) that is eye poping...

"This country(US) is never — never — going to stage a major military action against Pakistan.....Every serious person knows the United States won't invade Pakistan, even with Special Forces — since the reason we cancelled the proposed action against Al Qaeda in 2005 is that it was going to take many hundreds of American troops to do it. This isn't 15 people dropping like ninjas in the darkness. It's an invasion, with helicopters and supply lines and routes of ingress and escape. It would have had unforseen and unforeseeable consequences, but it would have been reasonable to assume the Pakistanis would have turned violently against the United States and hurtled toward Islamic fundamentalist control."

Is it a downward spiral or the upward swing? Depends on how you look it the reality on the ground.
Pakistan is inching closer to a respite from the wardi rule. I say respite because we don't know at this time how long that would last. However, it is still a positive. Possibly Pakistan would have its first free and fair elections after 1970. (77 was pretty close to fair it but not entirely)Isn't that a positive again?

But to top this all look at this situation:
If Pakistani had a vote now, and the vote was respected, we'd probably get a quasi-secular democracy not unlike Turkey.

Musharraf had two opposition groups to deal with in the last few weeks: the Lal Mosque Diwane, and the Lawyers and others all over the Punjab cities demonstrating in the name of constitutional democracy against his dismissal of the Chief Justice.

Mushy’s response was to send in the gendarmes to take out the Lal Maseet crew, and to back down on the judicial dismissal. I submit that's likely to be a fair indication of where you perceive the most powerful popular opposition to lie. Not with the jihadists.

I think it is an upward swing because the Jihadist got what they asked for…hehehe… and the Lawyers got what they asked for peacefully…..You decide!

Sorry posted this on the wrong thread!

Now the reality check time.

I posted this on “Lal Masjid: Lessons Learnt” thread
http://www.chowk.com/interacts/12388/1/0/48#333851

“I would like to emphasis that Benazir, if made PM of Pakistan, will not be able to control the islamist without the army’s help and army’s help to her would not be forthcoming due to several historical reasons. Which to me suggests that she will be the one who would seek the US help inside Pakistan I think she has agreed to be another Malaiki in Pakistan.”

This above represent the only scenario where the US army would enter Pakistan. And I think this situation would occur in Pakistan within six to 12 months of Benazir taking over Pakistan. The Pak army will not cooperate with Benazir no matter how hard she tries and despite ironclad guarantees from the US for the Pak army support. Even if she appoints Bilawal Zardari as the Chief of the Army., she will not get the cooperation from the Pak army That is the nature of the Pak army.

Btw, At that time all the Islamist here will support the Army a 100%. wanna Bet?

HAHA...pakis have their chaddis in a knot...hussein obama, shrillary and rudy all think pakiland is the problem...

so the hellfires regularly whacking pakis in pakiland and the repeated incursions into paki territory have bipartisan support...

Here is my post on the same issue. US attacking Pakistan…hehehehe
http://www.chowk.com/interacts/12131/1/0/472#331474
More on what the US can do in Pakistan...

``And how and in what way could the United States project force into Pakistan successfully?

Keep in mind that Pakistan`s nuclear weapons will probably at all material times be under maximum security, their specific locations will be both secret and tightly guarded, and they`re not nearly as portable or as easily filched as say, the Hope Diamond.

Put it another way: Pakistan`s nuclear facilities will be staffed, guarded and maintained by the most highly trained, highly motivated, most disciplined and well equipped Pakistanis.

They will probably be located in hardened complexes, in buried and concrete reinforced silos and bunkers, and defended by a variety of missile batteries, artillery, machine guns, small arms, and weapon placements, together with such things as barbed wire and traffic barricades.

Are we getting the picture?

The odds of a successful assault aimed at capturing or neutralizing Pakistan`s nuclear weapons is less than nil. Only a shivering moron would think its feasible.

The Raid at Entebbe makes it into the history books because it and actions like it are historical flukes. Their success comes from luck at so many levels its not even funny.

The odds of a successful assault, via missiles or air strikes aimed at neutralizing or destroying Pakistan`s nuclear weapons is somewhat better.

However, there are certain problems with this scenario. One is massive issues of contamination of the environment, particularly if one of those nukes blows.

The real risks are that if Pakistan or its remaining command structure interprets an attack on nuclear facilities as an Indian first strike... in which case, they`ll loose whatever remaining first, and possibly second strike capacity at India.

Or they`ll interpret it as an American attack, in which case... Well, we`ll find out how good the Pakistani targeting systems are against the American navy or American cities.

But assuming that dealing with Pakistan`s nukes is not the objective of an American military action. What is?

An occupation/peacekeeping force in Pakistan?

Don`t make me laugh. First, the United States military has repeatedly demonstrated its not particularly good at peacekeeping missions. Consider Somalia and Lebanon.

Second, there`s about 150 million Pakistani`s. The United States isn`t able to hold 24 million Iraqi`s. How are they going to do it in a country 6 times as populous and three times as big, with much tougher, rougher countryside?

Is there any credible scope for a unilateral US military intervention in Pakistan? Not in a dog`s ass.

And let`s think about what a unilateral action into Pakistan might provoke from India, China, Russia. What would be the reaction from the Muslim world.

Even a multilateral action would be difficult to organize (and none of this bullshit `Coalition of the Willing`). A true multilateral response would be difficult and the United States would be a partner, perhaps a minor partner, not a leader.``